I reckon, this has been on here before. But here it comes. I was recently proceeding on airline xy. As it turned out the flight got delayed due to a right gear malfunction. Consequently, I missed my connecting flight which resulted in a total delay of six hours for me. Now the big question is, are gear malfunctions covered by 'extraordinary circumstances'? Or should the airline pay for the delay? Of course the airline claims 'extraordinary circumstances'. Should I have a lawyer look into it?

Missed connection depends on the airline at the moment. If you miss a connection because of a delay through Dubai, the local carrier will squeal that you are not covered (unless the delay in the EU was more than 3 / 4 hours) because the rules do not apply to them, even though the arrival time at the final destination is key.

This is currently being challenged in the courts and a verdict is due 'after the summer recess' whenever that will be.

The matter of whether you were travelling on a through ticket or two point to point tickets would also come into play (at least as far as the UK is concerned.)' If using two separate tickets, the company concerned would no doubt argue that while they regret the delay to your flight, they had fulfilled the terms of the contract by delivering you to the stated destination and that their liability stops at that point.

As Dave Reid correctly points out, the incident described could most certainly only properly be described as a tech delay.

Indeed, however I still can't get my head round how the development of a technical issue is anything other than an extraordinary circumstance.

Perhaps, if you are then poorly treated you should claim compensation, but if the airline has fed and watered you, and gone to the lengths of even accommodating you if the delay requires an overnight stop, then you should not be entitled to compensation, you have travel insurance for things like that.

Extraordinary in my mind is when there is a failure following proper manufacturer approved inspection and preventative maintenance programme. Airlines don't run their aircraft like many car owners, skimping on maintenance and waiting until they break down. And let's face it, how often do they actually break down? In 20 years I think I can count only remember a dozen or so of flights that were cancelled due to technical failures. Most of our cancellations are due to weather, ATC, airport disruption, crew problems and passengers.

And can anybody tell me why airlines have been picked on by the EU? Ships, trains, busses appear to be exempt. Also maybe it's about time ATC was fined for their involvement? Let's just have a level playing field.

To get slightly technical, but not much, the aim of an Aircraft Maintenance Programme is to ensure that the aircraft is in precisely the condition described in its Type Certificate, every time it departs, apart from a few allowable defects (which must be fixed within a stated time).

What you really mean, I think, is that aircraft and their components rarely, if ever, simply break; materials and designs are too good for that.

So a delay due to a technical defect of any kind is almost certainly the consequence of something which is in the airline's control; and quite often that "something" is a consequence of management pressures, at least in airlines suffering from financial pressures.

Not all airlines, even in one State, operate to the same standards. Within the limits set by regulation there is still room for cutting corners if you are that way inclined, at least in maintenance, and a complaisant, lazy regulator will only realise what's happening when the consequent crash is investigated. And complaisant, lazy regulators exist in the most unexpected places, such as next-door to Beehives.